tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 24, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
and then a specific example of the operation we conducted recently against a very specific threat so you can see that, you know, a little bit more. >> that's reassuring to me. i'm sure it's reassuring to everyone who might be listening. changing gears, before my time is up, in israel, they are doing more with collaborating with the private sector and consolidating everything that they're doing into one location for synergy. what do you see as the future of collaborating with the private sector here in the u.s. with places like silicon valley, seattle, et cetera, to harness the public sector, creativity, expertise in this area? what do you see as the future of that? >> in that regard, the future is here.
we are integrated in with the private sector well. we're going to continue to grow that, whether it's through the defense innovation unit, experimental out in silicon valley, that secretary carter stood up. how we lerchlveraged the skills that the national guard and sources bring and we leverage those skills as integrating those folks into the cyber mission force or continue to work with the private sector in response to cyber attacks through exercises such as cyber guard. so, we already are working with the private sector pretty well, i think. we're going to get better at that. and we're leveraging the skills of the national guard and reserve folks as part of the cyber mission force. >> but you don't see anything in the works like what israel did, for instance, where there would be an actual consolidation into one location? that is a much smaller country, obviously. >> right. i would say that i don't see
that. no, sir. i think we have good coordination and collaboration through the department of homeland security, fbi, department of justice as well as the other sector-specific agencies, commerce, et cetera, with their sectors. but i don't see us consolidating all those activities under one -- into one location. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman i yield back. >> critical infrastructure that would threaten public safety. i wonder if you could talk about that and whether the dod and national guard would assist in responding to that type of attack as well as what actions
are being taken to eliminate those vulnerabilities and to make it so that these types of attacks are not possible. >> that's a great question and great challenge for our country, how we protect our critical ininfrastructure. we work closely with the department of homeland security, and have that responsibility to not only provide them with information regarding threats, but to help define how we would respond as a nation to an attack on the critical infrastructure. here dod gets involved is an attack of significant consequence. we have the responsibility to defend against an attack of this significant consequence. >> how do you define significant consequence? >> that would be determined by whether loss of life, physical damage, economic impact or how it might impact our foreign policy. those are some of the factors that we would evaluate.
of an attack of significant consequence. >> could i just ask a follow-up to that? >> yes, ma'am. >> as you define loss of life, if there was an attack on electric grid, caused a major power outage, hospitals no longer able to care for people and loss of life in that respect, would that fall under that definition? >> i would have to -- see i'm not sure i could answer a hypothetical like that. i think that the factors of the impact would certainly be evaluated or determined. regardless of whether it's an attack of significant consequence or not the department of homeland security would respond. if they needed assistance from the department of defense, they would ask for that assistance and we would respond with assistance through the department of homeland security to help that critical infra infrastructure infrastructure. part of that occurred in cyber guard where we exercise that capability, request for assistance from the department. and we respond.
so, the other piece of that is the national guard. they have cyber mission capability. they are being trained to the same capabilities as the rest of the title ten force. they can respond under their own state authorities. we recently completed coordinate, train, advise and assist policy within the department to allow national guard troops to use the department of defense resources to respond to a cyber event under state authority. and we're continuing to work other policies. i just recently set up a meeting to work with all the different combat and commands, cyber command, joint staff and office of general counsel to determine exactly how we're going to set up our defense support of similar authorities. more holistically, the policy has been in process for a significant time and we want senior leadership attention on it very directly. >> thank you.
i think this is something that, obviously, we're going to have to continue to discuss and understanding the differences of whether a state or nonstate actor were to come and launch a traditional type of military attack on critical infrastructure versus a cyber attack how the dod is involved r not in those situations. you know, given the types of attacks that we are already seeing from both state and nonstate actors in the cyber world, you >> i agree. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for testifying and your leadership on this issue. i want to focus my full questions on the panel and the evolution of the cyber threat and how we maintain the edge on
a 21st century battlefield. news as you know has been filled with stories about the evolving strategic threats in he cyber recommend like russia and destabilizing threats from both state and nonstate actors within this week. just this quadriplegic i read that they've been covering reports from around the world. in march at a hearing on this subject i asked admiral rogers ow confident he was moving forward that our cyber capabilities were robust enough to face the few tu on multiple fronts. can you speak specifically to your concerns about adversary cyber capabilities and your comparison in moving forward and the second part of my question is given the unique challenge of prosecuting sigh mustainous threat wrrks do you feel it's seeing risk for readiness?
>> so, ma'am, we're not going to address that. we'll get into it when we're in the closed session, but broadly you stated it correctly. the threat today is diverse. it certainly is representative not only by large nation states that are very, very capable to organizations like isil or criminal or hacker organizations. ta barrier to entry is not that high and the ability to innovate and use technology to continue to evolve is actually there. we on the cyber command side, i this i the key thing we think is important is focused people and technology. i'll do technology first. the ability to have the tools and the capability and sort of an integrated suite. an in-depth approach across cross our whole enter prove has proven to be very effective,
and the ability to bring new technology, that's one of the richardsons for the connection to silicon valley. that's why we feel it's so important. we don't feel the seencyber cape capability will be just for now. it's critical. the most important part, though, are our people. the reason we've talked about the persistent training environment. we haven't even talked about the foundational training that goes into the cyber mission force and some ask why does it take a if you'res to take an initial session and get them to that level is that we're training all of our people to a very, very high standard, a joint standard across the force. in our view it's in the minds of our people that are going to allow them to keep up technologically with what the threats are doing. we're not just training our
folks to operate equipment. we're train them to underthe domain, the foundational technologies, the advanced technologies, and in some cases they're advantaging the technology they're having at their fingertips to counter their adversary or develop tools to do that. so i think that's the most important part for us to stay ahead is making sure we invest in the people and have those types of skills. >> on the multiple fronts portion of the question, given the fact that there are multiple cyber threats whether there are those in the middle east, where do you feel it is ssuming risk to readiness? >> i think the way i'm going to answer your first question if i'm broadly assuming, risk to military force broadly. cyber is a thread through everything we do, our platform, networks, our own critical infrastructure within dod we can't defend everything all the time at the same level.
the way we approach this broadly with the department, this is not cyber command decision of our own makes. give it the most important combat capabilities that need to be hardened and defended. where the mission assurance is most critical. we don't think about doing that against oneone threat. we defend it at the highest level and we would accept risk if it were not as important or something we felt was lower on the priority because you can't defend all of it to 100% all the time. >> thank you. do other witnesses have -- would you like to add anything? >> on the risk measurement i would say we evaluate the critical infrastructure that's required for the department using our mission assurance strategy and our cyber strategy
combined to identified those most critical elements of the infra infrastructure that we need to protect and then we evaluate and prioritize those pieces wchl're not only protecting them from physical damage, but now we're also mapping out the key siper terrain to understand where the most critical vulnerabilities are. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> mr. ashford? >> thank you. i'd like to second the comments regarding it on the emerging threats. it's been a very interesting year and a half. i have two topics i'd like to cover. one is deterrence in the cyber world and then secondarily the information technology exchange program and how you see that evolving. if i could start with general mclaughlin on deterrence.
when we're dealing with what the public generally thinks about in the deterrence area, we're talking about nuclear weapons. in this case, we're dealing with cyber. we know to a certain extent how many nuclear weapons are out there. we can identify the specific threat and we have decades of experience in dealing with deterrents as it relats to nuclear weapons and other matters regarding deterrents. in cyber where we have 80,000 or so attack as year and we have -- it's hard to identify where they're coming from and who has the capabilities at any given time, it's very dynamic, and you've talked about that, can you just kind of define for me what deterrence means in the cyber world and how that's volving? >> ei can jump on that a little bit. from a cyber perspective as we mentioned before -- a cyber attack doesn't always mean a
cyber response. attribution is key. and that's probably the greatest challenge in any cyber attack is attributing it to either a state actor or nonstate actor. we look at it as we want to make sure from the assurance policy it's declare torrey, that everybody understanding exactly where we stand and we're able to impose costs. so the first part of any deterrence policy and our deterrence policy is denial. we want to make sure we deny the adversary to achieve the effects they're trying to achieve by developing and having good cyber security. the next thing we want to bible to do is have a very resilient system. we want to build a resilient system and if they are attacked as general mclaughlin has already said, we can't protect everything all the time, but if they are attacked, that they'll be able to recover and be resilient and back online, denying the adversary the goals they're trying to achieve. and then the third step of our
deterrence policy is to impose costs. whether it's diplomatic, law enforcement, economic sanctions or military actions to include cyber response. those are part of the deterrence policy we would use to respond or to signal to a state or nonstate actor. >> general. >> sir, just in accordance with the direction we received from osd. mr. at kin mentioned the secretary signed there are new dod strategy. within that there was direction for us to actually take steps to meet those three goals, and our primary effort has been all the defensive activity and the work we do to make our work more resilient and to make it where an adversary couldn't achieve their goals against our -- that they might try to achieve by attacking our cyber infrastruck tu. many people don't think
deterrence involves thaw, but it's really been the anchor of what we're doing, we've been ordered to do and we're accomplishing within the cyber command. it's aimed at bringing options to bear that would be there for the secretary and the president if that was directed. >> thank you. let me -- could i just ask a question about the information technology exchange program? i believe in the ndaa we expanded that program a bit and dded more slots. is that program -- so take, for example, the sony case where there were issues in the sony technology that made it easier or less difficult to attack the sony technology, whether it's the silos of the various businesses within sony or whatever it is. there are issues in the private
sector that are different from dod sector and federal sector, and they're diverse. it depends on the industry and what they do. so is the purpose of the information of the technology exchange program to help to put in place people into the private sector directly torque help them with that, and then vice versa, to deal with those threats, and then vice versa, to -- if there's somebody in the private -- if i understand this, in the private sector, we have someone who's really exemplary or efficient in the cyber security that we can bring those people in on a temporary basis to address those issues that we see. is that -- is that essentially what we're doing here? >> sir, i'll have to take that question. i'm not familiar with that program. >> aside from that program are there others in place to allow
us to bring private experts in the private sector into the military on a temporary basis and vice versa? is that par of what we're doing? maybe misunderstood the program. >> i'm not familiar with hat. i know the secretary has talked about that as part of the force of the future, some of the changes, so i know that's something he's beginning to talk about and as we move forward. what i would say is we try to leverage the skills from the private sector through our national guard and reserve forces as we mentioned earlier and the skills that they gain in the private sector and we also do things like the bug bounty where we actually have hackers come in and take look at our dod systems and see if they can hack those systems some of there are different ways we're trying to leverage the private sector to improve
our own cyber security. > thank you. general? >> sir f you're referring to the cyber security information sharing act, i think that's what you're referring to -- >> right. >> -- that the government has passed. that has gone a long way. the two main benefit os that act are that it first off reduces the risk of any legal liability to any of those industry partners we have when they share that information and also decreases any economic or business advantage that might be gained through the act of sharing that type of information. so it's really knocking down a lot of those barriers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mister rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this would be a question for all of you. do any of you believe that the department of defense should use equipment provided by wowway or zte, each who have links to kmie sneeze military apparatus and illegal sales to iran and in violation of u.s. sanctions?
>> sir, i'm not familiar with those technologies. certainly we would want to take those factors that you just igh lighted into consideration f we were us go to use anything like that, and thought would probably be -- the risk would have to be evaluated based on those threats and whether we would use those. >> you're not floor with them. >> i've about heard of them, but i'm not a technical expert to make good decision. >> so, sir, i would just say -- so i have heard of the first company that you've mentioned, but what i would say broadly is all of the ee kwimtd that we use or field as par of our dod mission, you know, it's heritage and the supply chain, it's important that we assess based on the equipment, we assess what vendors are appropriate and which ones should be. siem not prepared to tell you
because i just doan know what exclusions might be there for our core capabilities before we buy it, we buy that capability, it's security and it's our knowledge of the supply chain go into the factors before we make up a broader procurement. >> general? >> just piggy backing on what the two gentlemen said, they're real and they should be considered any time we look at a purchase marked dod or the federal government. >> that -- with relation to dod, what about a u.s. cleared contractor? do you apply a different they were thinking about using equipment for one of those two chinese firms? >> sir, i'm not -- again, i'm not on the acquisition side, and i know that we work very closely on the acquisition side with the contractors through
he industrial base to ensure that their systems are secure, so we're always looking at the supply chain vulnerabilities and the risk, and so our advice to any of the contractors that support the department of defense or any of the inner agency, i think we recommend to take a hard look at their supply chain vulnerabilities and make sure their information is secure and their operations are secure. >> so i guess i'm hearing from you all that you don't have a list of chinese firms that you're concerned about right now or you have a list, you're not familiar with it. >> sir, i'm not familiar with the list. do you know if you have a list? >> i do not, no, sir. and we can state that for the record. >> general mclaughlin door you know if yowl all have a list of chinese firms you're concerned about having access to your supply chain? >> sir, i don't, because it's all handled within our acquisition chain of command, the folks that actually procure
our equipment which is outside what we do at cyber command. >> if you could do it for the record i would appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> ms. mcsally. >> thank you. i'm not sure if you answered this. i was at a homeland security briefing. i do want to talk about the cyber operations against i says starting a few months ago. the caliphate was declared two years ago. i know probably the details would be more in a classified realm, but this is a very important domain and this terrorist organization is using sign never a way we've never seen terrorist organizations use it before and what took so ong. how come it was two years before we even would think about fighting in this domain? >> ma'am, that's a great question.
i this i the bottom line is that we probably started more than two months ago. i don't have the exact date and time that we began to conduct cyber operations against isis. we continued to respond to isis and their -- both the social media, the information about military and their families ochl so it wasn't always a cyber response to isis but rsusaking them outo they can't communicate. we know cells in raqqah directing training and operations very specifically charging against americans in real life. why doesn't the internet shut down a rocket. why did we not have operations two years ago going against their commanding control as
part of our centers of gravity and using all elements of ilitary power to take them down? >> i know they'll get more into this in the closed hearing later today. the fact is we may have been going after them but we didn't necessarily use cyber activities to do thachlt there's also balance between collecting information and shutting it down. and certainly going after specific nodes to hamper and stop the use of the internet by isis is important, but we also have to respect the privileges and rights of citizens to have access to the internet as a whole and as a country. so it's a careful balance even in raqqah or mosul or anywhere on how we balance the need or the rights to have access to the internet versus the use of the internet illegally by folks
like isil. >> i'd like to follow up for sure in the classified setting with a little more details. the second question is we were dealing with -- my last assignment was at after ka command, trying to deal with the functional commands and gee graph contact commands. can somebody speak to how the relationship is working and is their duplication of cyber capabilities at the geographic command as hound does that work if you're working with operations? >> yes, ma'am. i think it's working pretty well and i don't see any duplication right now. when we -- later we'll give you some great details with regard to u.s. central command. but generally each of those commands have a cyber element that's at the cyber level and their job is to understand it. with very the forces that are actually both defensive and offensive forces that they're using, so the practical way that it's working today for example in real world operations is we have daily,
you know, whether it's targeting meetings or planning sessions where the supportive commanders are acting routinely. our job is to support them. and, you know, we deliver the effects on the targets that i need at the time they need. we bring it with the capability. >> thanks. the last question is about the laws of iran conflict and the challenges we've had in this domain and identifyinging what's an armed attack and what constitutes the ability to respond and all that kind of stuff. can we have some comment on where we are on that and whether there's still some further definition that needs to happen versus the clear authorities that are needed to operate in this domain? >> i'd say specifically to your question what defines an act of war i think is what your question is regarding the cyber act thachlt has not been defined. we're still working toward that definition across the interagency. as far as an attack of
significance consequence which do would respond to in the home land, we don't necessarily have a clear definition that states it but we have loss of life, economical impact and foreign policy some of there are some clear lines in the road where we would ee vanilla yat any specific cyber act or incident and how we would respond to that. >> great. time's expired. thank you. >> let me follow up on a few things. if row arguing that is state xtends of rocca have some sort of inherent right to access the internet that you all have to ry to weigh?
>> what i'm trying to explain is when we talk about taking out the internet, there are always challenging to how you do that and where you do that in space some of the internet service providers who provide that enter net service to a a eon are much broader oop. so how that occurs has greater impact against the adversary and we have to weigh that in when we make our decision. whether that's a kinetic or cyber operations those factors are always weighed in and the impact is very populous. sfloo i think i understand. i got concerned for a second that there was some sort of
inherent right to be on the internet that was a factor in your all's decision-making. i want to go back to the general's support in ecision-making and when you've got to keep them informed and when you've got to get permission. there's been a fair amount written about the air campaign. and i quoted secretary worker ler who said just like we have an air campaign, i want to have a cyber cam bane. some of the things that have been written about the air campaign are that for some sorts of -- so we've got airplanes circling above iraq or syria for some sort of attacks, a certain level of
command can make a decision, say it's okay to drop your bomb. others have to go up to sit come, some have to go to the secretary, the president, meanwhile the plane's there circling. and one of the challenges to being more effective against isis is this multi-layered decision-making process which has slowed down or hindered the ability of our military to be as effective as they could be. now, that's with bombs and air campaign. i'm concerned, i guess, that we are developing the same sort of multi-layered bureaucracy decision-make progress says when it comes to cyber, which -- and part of the challenge with the air campaign is by the time you get permission to do it, the target is gone. and i have personally talked to pilots that have had that happen. now, when things are moving at the speed of light, if we go through this multi-layered
decision process for -- to push the button on a cyber response, then we're going to be hopelessly behind. so i guess if anybody can address where we are with this speed of bureaucracy matching the speed of the world that would reassure me, i would like to hear it. >> yes, sir. what i would say is in the area of hostilities, cyber come has the authority in which to conduct cyber effects and make that decision at the cyber come level. so they certainly have those authorities to do that, and i think they can talk more -- in greater detail in a closed session tonight -- or this afternoon on the specific authorities that they do ave.
>> okay. we'll talk more about it, but, again, just drawing the analogy to the air campaign, i'm not yet reassured. mr. at kin, i want to follow up mr. lamborn's question about the nato announcement last week. does that nato announcement indicate nato has agreed that a cyber attack can trigger article 5? >> that is my understanding. >> and so then the question for the nato nations is going to be at what level of cyber attack would trigger article 5 because there are at least media reports of a fair amount of constant cyber activity in some of the baltic and eastern european countries coming from the east.
>> right. as far as i know, there has not been a determination made oar a decision made on what would constitute a cyber attack that would trigger article 5. so i would have to take that one for the record. >> okay. and, finally, the questions that mrs. gabbard was asking about authorities and a gap of physical consequence, is one of the factors that would be considering in determining hether it's an attack of significant consequence, who the actor is, whether it's a tate actor or not. >> that could be a factor, but i wouldn't say it's one of the primary factors. the primary factors are loss of life, economic imparkts how it may impact our foreign policy, and then physical property. so those are the four primary factors that we would evaluate from an attack of significant consequence wlrks that's a state or nonstate actor.
>> i guess the question that would come to my mind would be as it relats to terrorism information we may get information that a terrorist attack is in the works. we don't know exactly what the target will be. we don't know exactly what the consequence will be. and if you have to wait to see what the consequence is, then it's going be too late, right? >> that's right. i'd also say it's similar to a cyber threat. if you have an unknown -- if you have a known -- i guess i'll back up. if you have the potential for a cyber attack, but you don't know where it's coming from, you don't know who's going to do it. you certainly would alert people to prostliemd an opportunity to maybe heighten their security just like we do in the physical world with a terror threat when we're not exactly sure of the where or
when it will happen. it is similar, but we can't necessarily -- if we don't know where it's coming from and who's going to do it and how it's going to happen, it's very hard go in and then stop that from happening. >> no, i understand. i guess -- and i realize you don't want to get into hypotheticals. my concern is we know where it's coming from. country x, y, z, who has tremendous cyber capability is preparing to do something, and the question is whether we wait and let them do it or try to at least take defensive action to manage the consequence of it. and to me that's where this gets very difficult. i understand, you know, if we know it's going have significant loss of life, yeah, that's pretty easy. but if we see -- and i guess i would say the difference is we knee isis is going to do whatever they can get away
with. so they're going to use their full capability to kill as many people as they possibly can. we don't know that about some state actors who have tre membership does cyber capability. and so waiting to see how much of their capability they will use and how that fits into the standard of attacks of significant consequence seems to me to be somewhat problematic. >> i think we've surpassed one another a little bit. the first is how we respond to an attack and when we respond, how we respond versus making sure we have a good cyber security posture to make sure we're defended prior to an attack, so certainly there's -- we would not necessarily evaluate the potential before it happens. we would go ahead and provide defensive measures through dhs
with dhs to help prevented an attack. and then we evaluate after an attack happens. >> i realize these terms -- okay. so we're going to wait back and defend but not take action to defend the attack to begin with, so the definition of offense and defense in this situation gets a little tricky. and i'm not trying to pin you down. for some of the complexities of his -- these challenges. >> certainly a known threat coming from a known actor that we know will -- is coming after the united states, i would say that we would certainly evaluate that and those decisions would be made by the secretary and the president and what kind of actions we would take to stop that from happening. that would be on a case-by-case basis. >> okay.
thank you. mr. langeman. >> thank you. i would go back to the training environment again. general mclaughlin, the house and services committee and you know fully funded the persistent training environmental initiative and i understand other committees did ot provide full funding. my question is can dow provide the proposed cuts and what state has it been in? has it been fully approved by the joint staff? >> sir, if it's okay, aisle attempt to answer that question for you. >> sure. >> so as was indicated earlier, it gives us things we don't currently have like on the joint operations ranges. we don't have the scale to truly represent truly and realistic event. so that's the big advantage that it gets us. as the name indicates, it ee
pertinent. right now the official capability document is under review. it should be signed in the next one to two weeks. if that happens, we should expect to have an ioc by fiscal year '19. > thank you. i know we've talked about this on some point, but general mclaughlin and general moore, what role does the cyber threat intelligence integration center established in 2015 play in support of cyber operational lanning? >> sir, in terms of cyber operational planning, in our day-to-day operations at cyber command, it's not playing a role in the planning side. it's mostly playing the role of collecting -- integrating intelligence and integration on what the threat is doing and then at times providing -- you know, providing information
of planetry exploration particularly on mars. >> we tour the museum with the head of the museum space history department and learn about the story of human exploration. and at 8:00 on the presidency james rose bush former deputy assistant to president reagan. >> i have come to see, and this relates again to president nixon, that a great leader of character is a person who has the ability to discern the future and lead a people to it nd through it. >> next, a conversation with facebook chief operating officer sandberg. topics include the role of technology in relationships,
her book lean in and equality for women in the workplace and at home. >> welcome. i'm delighted to welcome my friend to join us in this conversation here today. it has been a busy day here today. this is something i've been looking forward to for a long time. this is an interview we've been hoping to do. we've had this on the books for four months. as many of you know, one of the last events we'll be doing here in this building. we'll be talking about so many of the issues that are
important. i'm going to gave quick bio. it's so impressive. i want to dwell a little bit on what success looks like in america today. cheryl bazzheen the chief operating officer at facebook since 2008. when she came to facebook, facebook had 70 million users which seemed like a lot at the time. and 550 employees. the like button had yet to be invented. cebook today has 1.6 billion users. and more than 13,000 employees. she's done a lot more than just that. and i say that, just that. she's the author of the best seller, lean in, women working. and she is the founder of lean-in.org a nonprofit organization dedicated to women to achieve their ambitions.
i should note it has spawned circles of women talking about issues they are facing. how many? >> 28,000. this is social capital building. this is activism. cheryl began her career in d.c. good things in entrepreneurship can happen in d.c. it's a rarity for silicon valley executives. after studying economics at harvard she went to work in the world bank. welcome. >> thank you all for being here and thank you for your friendship and for inviting me here today. >> i am delighted to have you here. we've been looking forward for a long time. we met in 2006. we were both really interested in philanthropy. i had written this controversial book about who gives more to charity.
and i was talking about stanford and she was interested in the topic and came to a topic i gave and said that was one of the most interesting people i've ever met so it's great i get to meet again. i have a lot of questions and want to get to it. here in washington, d.c., but that not withstanding we saw each other a month ago because facebook was in the middle of not real lay controversy but something that flared up in which people had asserted that the trending topics at facebook had either been manipulated or done something to suppress conservative views but why don't you discuss the controversy and how it was dealt with. >> facebook is a platform for all ideas and we have 1.6
people using the platform which means all ideas have to be able to be expressed. trending topics is a small product. we have a small editorial team most of the work done doesn't involve editorial but that was important because we need human editors. without that every day at noon lunch would be trending. so we need some human touch to get this right. and dinner around 5:00. >> every day. that's weird. >> every day lunch trend. breakfast lunch dinner. and so we had a contractor on that team who accused us of having a liberal bias. that's an important accusation and one we take seriously. it's also one that rang tru to some people because there is concern that silicon valley has a liberal bias. so we took it seriously. we didn't find a liberal bias but we still took additional steps to be more rigorous to
running the editorial team put out for our team stronger guidelines. there was a list we were using to validate sites. we got rid of that. we also had this meeting that unites people across the country to attend where we had a full range of conservative voices. we didn't just talk about this topic. we talked about how they were using facebook to get their voice out. and this really meaths it is a political time and we're proud of the role we play in elections not just here but around the world. the vision of facebook was to enable individuals to connect but to connect not just to their friends and family but also to the people who are representing them and who they want to represent them. so in this presidential election, facebook has been very broadly used. it's worth noting that donald trump has more fans than both bernie sanders and hillary clinton combined. we're also proud of our use by people who are already elected. every member of congress has a facebook presence and some of them, one of my favorite examples happens to be the
youngest member of congress posts very frequently and really explains themselves she posts almost after vote she takes to explain why she did it. that is the vision and one we're excited to see keep coming. >> so your investigation of this turned out what, and what engineering solutions just as a basic matter did you implement? >> it turned up no systemic bias but we still take it really seriously. so we have -- it's interesting. we think a lot about diversity at facebook. and it's something our industry struggled with, we've struggled with. and we have a managing bias class that a lot of our leaders and employees have taken that i was part of helping to create and we focused on racial bias age bias. now we're going to add a scenario on political bias. as part of what we think about helping people to be open we're dealing with political bias as
well. >> i think that's really encouraging too. i spent a lot of time in northern california because i fund raise all the time. when i'm in northern california one of the things we find it's hard to find people that have a conservative or religious world view in that part of the world. you find you need to work harder to find employees and executive that is can understand that. are you looking for more people that have that world view perhaps at facebook and other companies as well? >> we think to build a product at 1.6 billion people use you need diversity. and what you need is cognitive diversity. >> intellectual diversity. >> how do you get that? by having diversity of the population. everything from age gender to nationality to personality time 2 as you're saying ideological and idea dersty. you also have to create an environment which rewards that.
we try to run the company where people speak the truth to power we're very open. we have a story of a young intern telling mark years ago, you're not a very good public speaker. you should get better at that. this is a summerer intern. mark said to him, you're right. and thanked him public limit you're right. i'm not good at that and i'd better get better. >> what happened to the intern? >> the intern got hired. it's an important question. the intern got hired. >> at facebook. >> at facebook. >> i was at a meeting at facebook and i was saying one thing i really wanted to do. and then a young engineer i had never met raised his hands and said one of the worst idea he ever heard was exactly what i said i wanted to do. i thanked him and posted to the entire company and thanked him publicly for disagreeing with me and said he was right.
and he was. you need people with different opinions and an environment where people can express those opinions. >> do you surround yourself with people that disagree with you on purpose? do you hire people to disagree with you? lincoln did that a lot of successful leaders have done it. >> it takes a willingness to tell people that they're allowed to disagree. so if i make a mistake today i'm going to say too much not too long. but if i never speak about that openly what are the chances that someone who works for me said you talked too much in that meeting? zero. but if i want to say i want to make sure i don't take too much of your time, and someone can say you asked me to tell you. >> interesting. >> but you have to raise it yourself because people are not going to speak truth to power unless you make that apparent. and that's how we get not just different voices into the company but make sure we're listening to different voices.
>> let's talk a little bit about just not what spawned that particular controversy but the broader issue of the disemination of news and information. it's interesting when our a fast-growing company like facebook you never know what business you're going to be in next. you've look been incredibly successful in having situational awareness. this has been a case study. i would talk about facebook and say it's extraordinary how they see opportunity through the windshield and grab them as opposed to having a ten-year strategic plan. now, that means that there are things like news disemination that you didn't know you were going to be in ten years and you are now. the difficulty i suppose is that yoush employees don't have journalism training. if you were at the "new york times" you wouldn't have people who only have technical training trying to write the news and spread the news. they have to go to j school.
that's not necessarily the best way to do it but it begs the question. what do you do to maintain the standards when you suddenly have gotten into an industry that you weren't i guess prepared for or your employees weren't prepared for? >> we're clear about the indstrnd and company we're in. we're in the tech company not media. we're not trying to hire journalist or write news. when you think about news feed, the way we think about it is if you are sitting down with your friends or family one of the ten things you want to see and we determine that mostly with machines and algorithms. the way we determine that is important. the average, medium person on facebook we have 116 stories to read that day. i welcome you to spend that much time on facebook but ou're probably not going to. >> especially the aei employees
because they're super busy. so we want to make sure we're surfacing the stuff you want to see first. so we're looking at the things you do. when i choose to follow your post, if i interact your post more, if i like and follow them, i will therefore see more of it. the top thing in my news feed last night was my friend mariney and phil their wedding anniversary. why? because they're two of my cloastest friends and i'm constantly liking and commenting on their posts. so i saw that most freektly. we invite people to give us feedback. there's an arrow on every post and you can say hide this post. you can go to anyone's profile and say i want to see this first. so news feed gets better the more information you give us. >> so you would just assume in the news function have less human interaction with it and be more aut matted so there's less editorial discretion.
>> there's very little. there is some as there was with trending topics again to make sure things like lunch don't trend every day at noon. but for the most part this is machine-based based on the action youse take. >> are you worried that there are certain viewpoints, hate speech and discrimination and things that we're sort of against that are going to keep coming up and maybe there should be more intrusion on? or is that something we have to deal with and the cost of doing business? >> we have content policy. we take very seriously. there are thing which is have no place on facebook, no place on facebook for hate violence terrorism. and any of that content is pulled down and pulled off the site as soon as we can find it. >> that does require some editorial discretion with the help of technology. >> and it heavily relies on people reporting that content to us. with 1.6 billion users we're not going to catch everything but we also have 1.6 billion
users that can report things. when we see something we act quickly to take it down. not just the content but the accounts. >> that actually leads to some of the problems that we're having in the united states, this topic does. i think that most people here probably agree that there's too much political polarization or at least an unpleasant level. something i've written a lot about and you care about. one of the concerns is that we're able to tailor the information that we get through social media so much that we get something a social scientists who always have a fancy word for everything, they call it epi stemic closure. that means i'm closed to outside views. i can taylor everything that comes in. one of the things that people are concerned about and social media makes it easier. you can really cocoon yourself completely from it. this leads to an experience that's not very enriching i think.
so i know you're concerned about this. what is your view on this? do you believe that facebook is inadvertently leading to eep stemic closure? >> it's a great question. i do think it's a common fear that some people have. i also think it's not true. so media companies have certainly come to not all but most a more specific point of view over the last number of decades. when you choose to go to fox or cnn or "new york times" you're making a decision what point of view you want to see and you know that. when you come to facebook what facebook does, here's another sociology term we strengthen your weak ties not your strong ties. psychologists think about your strong and weak ties. the people you are in constant touch with your mom, husband, wife, child. facebook doesn't change your interactions with those people because you know what those people are doing and you're in touch with them anyway. what facebook does is enable you to communicate with a lot
more people. the people you worked with at your last company, the people you went to high school with, three of my friends are in this audience today. the people who you're not in touch with on a daily basis. o it strengthens your weak ties. for the most part when you go to a smaller group to a broader group you go to a broader point of view. we feel it broadance your points particularly when you compare it to getting more news from one news outlet. >> there any way to inject more weak ties with alternative points of view? is there any way to do that? from the american enterprise institute. >> i'm glad you ask the question exactly this way because it is part of the discussion we're having which is facebook is not going to inject anything to anyone. that's not what we're going to do. we don't have a point of view, not trying to make you have a point of view. we're enabling you to connect with more people. certainly anyone watching we invite you to connect if you
want to so you can hear those points of view. our average person has 150 friends or pages they follow. over time those numbers tend to go up. so we do see that people are broadening out the voices they hear from over time and we provide the technology that makes it possible to do that >> let's move on a little bit to the impact of tech on society and the economy. because this is something you've written and talked an awful lot about and you and i have discussed. i know it's important to you. you have a longstanding relationship with larry summers and with a lot of our mutual friends who have written a good deal about inequality. economic inequality, inequality of opportunity. i know you feel strongly about it. it's a big issue in politics today clearly some of the populous trends that we've seen in the current presidential election has a great deal to do f inequality, if not income, opportunity. some scholars have written about the extent to which the
structure of the economy is creating enclaves of winners and losers. that people are being -- they're being facilitated into the success that they earn by the new economy and others who are being kind of excluded. you are in part of the economy where you see big winners a lot. it's hard to see some of the people who have been left behind. some of the people from ohio where the plant shut down. what's your view on how the new tech economy that you're part of, how it's changing inequality for the winners and losers in the new economy, the post industrial revolution as it were? and what are the trends that you see and what can we do to ameliorate some of these trends? >> inequality is rising and it's important and something we all need to be concerned about. as an industry tech we have to ask ourselves what role do we play? and all new technology but particularly technology that grows quickly raises real challenges and also has real opportunities. and the challenges are real.
every time there's been real technological change from the industrial revolution, it changes job models, economic growth, patterns of what the labor markets need. and there's adaptation that has to happen. there's also real opportunities created. so you look at job creations. the am app store is eight years old and creates 600,000 jobs. and i think sometimes people think tech only creates tech jobs and that's not true. at facebook there are 50 million small businesses that use facebook to sell and market around the world. and most of those are not tech businesses. this is the local baker using facebook to start a business. and most job growth comes from small entrepreneurship. my favorite example is a woman i met named emily. she started a company while serving in the u.s. military she was deployed in afghanistan. they used facebook to communicate, and sell their
products. they take military materials, tents uniforms and makes them into bags and accessories. fast forward a few years she is now a veteran. her business is thriving and employ 40 veterans doing this work and servicing customers. so technology unleashes entrepreneurship. that's a pretty low-tech business. they're selling hand bags and accessories. i do think as a society, as policy makers in this town we have a real role to play to make sure we're well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities and meet the challenges. and it really comes down to education. there are 600,000 open competing jobs in our economy. our university will churn out science grads this year not all whom have the ability to work here. we have an economy that needs jobs and not investing in the right education to get people there. this means math, science, computer science. it's particularly a challenge
for women and minorities who are getting even less of the education they need. but it's a really big opportunity for us and one we're not meeting now. i think we need to start thinking of computer science as a language, we teach reading, writing, computer science in our schools. and we are a long way from there. but we have to change and we have to change fast. >> education reform is something we do a ton of at aei. one reason is because we believe that the human potential is a right that people should have and should understand that they have. one of the thing that is we're talking about along these lines is trying to reform education such that people have real skills even coming out of high school. and beyond just the fact that not enough people know how to code or go on to become computer scientists in college, an interesting fact is that there are 300,000 skilled welding jobs open in this country this year while we have over a 30% unemployment rate, for example, for young african american men. these are skills needs
mismatch. so it's certainly not just in coding and high-tech things. it's in the skilled trades that are dignified, pay well and are hard to outsource. what's your view in general on what we need to do urgently that could help solve some of these problems to get some of these skills, maybe some apprentice ships, what should we do now? >> we have schools that have churned out 11% of graduates who can read for decades. and that neets to change. our schools need to educate people so that they can read, write, take advantage of vocational education. we need to not be afraid to train people for the jobs we have. and we need to not be afraid to take a harder look at the basics. because it really is the basics of reading, math, science to prepare to do any of this. if we can't give kids the fundamental business the young ages we fail later on in the system. so i'm glad for all the work
you do and there's probably nothing more important for all of us than stem education and educational reform in this country. >> let's go -- we've talked about how we can enrich people who would have more skills from the tech industry. but let's look how the tech industry can lift people up who don't happen to be in the industry. i interviewed bill gates some months ago and he's very have concerned with the extent to which the post industrial revolution has had a hard time reaching down to the bottom of the economy and alleviating poverty. it's easy to see -- and related to what we talked about a minute ago -- how the post industrial revolution is great for some. but how can we add more human capital to people at the very bottom of the ladder both here in the united states and especially around the world where poverty is a grinding phenomenon and ruining generations of people? >> it's such an important question. and one of the things we focus on is connectivity flt there
are 4 billion people around the world who are not connected, have no access to data and that means they're cut off from health care information, job information, that their voice can't be heard. particular issue for women. women are 25% less likely to be connected. so the question is how do you solve the problem? you solve the problem by addressing its root causes. for most people it's economic not technical. on the economic, the world bank puts global absolute poverty at $1.90 a day. 10% lives under that line. the average connected facebook user in the u.s. costs of data -- this isn't going to pop up this week -- is $1 a day. that means that people in this room are spending in facebook data half of what the poorest people in the world are living on. so we know that in order to get them connected so we can hear from their voices we need to lower the cost of data. facebook has a program called free basics an open platform
where we provide free services free data to people. and it includes health information, job information, basic information they need. and so far with that at internet.org we've connected 250 million people. we've faced some real challenges but we're going to keep pushing because those people deserve the access we get and we see the benefits. for every ten people, one is list lifted out of poverty already and we can see the health benefits. it's also an issue mostly economic in the united states. most people who are not connected fall under $30,000 a year of income. so we need to solve that. for 1.6 pft 4 billion it is a technical challenge because they don't have access to 3 or 4 g which is what you need. so we've invested in creative solutions. one is our solar powered airplane which can fly for very long distances at very high altitudes and beam down
connectivity. it has the swing span of a 737 but weighs about as much as a small car which is why it can accomplish as much with as little energy. we're going to need things like that that get creative to get access to the people who don't have it. >> a couple of quick followup questions. number one is walk us through how somebody who gets free basic in india, for example, how that having that service can be a facilitator for escaping poverty. tell the story of somebody where that happens. >> we've seen this a lot. we've seen examples where people from mobile phones who are agricultural workers in a the developing words figure out the price for the products on their farm and increase their income. we have stories through free basics from women who have access to basic health information and go on to have healthier preg sis.
sanitation, improved health incomes. people who can start businesses not just for themselves but a whole village. so if you think about living a life where you have no access to information and then turning on the lights so to speak, access to information on your own rights and your own country. this is being used in india for women who are largely in the home to be informed about their rights in domestic violence cases. if you're a victim you often have trouble leaving your home. so information that can't get to you in your home doesn't help you. but through free basics we've had stories of women accessing information on their rights and their own country on domestic violence and being able to connect with services. >> one of the thing that is some of our scholars talk about is we tend to say what the poor need to not be poor is shelter and food and basic health care. but one of the things we find that really lifts people out of poverty are communications, energy, and credit. those are the things.
so you can be basically maintaining a subsistence level with those first three things. but if you want to get into something that looks like the middle class you need something like what we're talking about here. you face real challenges to giving away free data. how could you face challenges? take india. what kind of challenges would you face? >> we face real challenges. any time you try to disrupt an industry that makes something cheaper you disrupt an industry. we face challenges in india on net nuletralt. we believe in net newt ralt. it's important to have a free and open internet where services can be delivered not just from companies like ours but small startups. it has also been used incorrectly in my view to try to keep us and others from delivering free services to the world. i don't think it was ever intended that way and i think the debate over time will
evolve to the point where people understand how important it is for us to provide data. >> so you go into a market and there are entrenched providers of service that is don't like the fact that you're pricing your services at zero. >> it happens from all different people. and people want to protect local industries but sometimes the breast of policies can be misapplied. and we've seen that the not just in india but all over the world. >> so these are the legal challenges that you continue to face. and i guess what you would expect. let's turn to policy because we're touching on policy right now. so as you may or may not know you're in washington, d.c. >> thanks. >> i'm just going to -- i'm going to guess that the only reason you're here is not just to sort of see the washington monument and talk to arthur brooks you must be here for something else. what are you doing? .> so i'm here with my team
we're here talking to policy makers. because this is a really important time. you don't need me to tell you. we're at a place where we have to decide what kind of policy and regulatory environment we like. the united states in many ways has had the right policy environment for the tech industry and other industries to develop. we are a country of entrepreneurs. we are a country that is invested in and supported innovation and we need to make sure we have the right policy and regulatory environment that continues to do that here and around the world. so the people who work here both at the staff level and obviously members of congress and people, they really matter in the right regulatory environment. we're here talking to them. >> what kind of policy environment is most conducive to the innovation that you would like to see help the american public the most? what are the big changes you would like to see? >> some are changes and maintaining things and maintaining that. we have had a free and open internet. we've had a global system where
for the most part you can transfer data between countries. that's really important. one of the big open issues is the transfer of data from the e.u. to the u.s. because the legal and regulatory umbrella under which that has happened which is safe harbor and now the privacy field is is under challenge. it's important that countries enable us to work across borders. a good example is immigration. facebook. 83% of the people who use facebook live outside of the united states. more than 83% of our workers live inside the united states. we've been able to hire most of the high-skilled workers we need. but the visa situation is a crisis for our company and others. 060,000 jobs, 43,000 grads not all from the u.s. we have to hire workers. as visa's have gotten tighter we've taken jobs and had to move them overseas.
when we move a tech job overseas we move all the answer larry jobs around us. so we're trying to scl duct the majority of our business here and we need the immigration system that lets us do that >> we had an interesting report that shows an average high skill worker generates about five jobs. those are the answer larry opportunities. just good public policy. and good for everybody along the way. innovation. we might turn back to policy if we have time but i want to talk about innovation. facebook is doing some interesting high profile things in technologies not what we expect. this has been an opportunity stick company that found all sorts of innovative opportunities that most wouldn't see. so when you're investing in thing that is are counter intuitive it gets attention. i'm talking about especially your investments in virtual
reality through ok luss and also your work in developing artificial intelligence. can you talk about that some of the stuff you've got going out there and maybe blow our minds. >> i can certainly talk about investments and innovations. we are making big investments in technology that we think will serve our mission. to help people share and connect all over the world. artificial intelligence is really important. i think sometimes very misunderstood. we are using artificial and machine learning right now to translate facebook into 40 languages that go in 1800 different directions. so the reason people around the world can communicate is because of machine learning. we're using ai to make facebook usable for people who are blind. ai can read the picture in your news feed so you know what's going on. and as we continue to invest in things machines can do, ai will help us bring us closer together. and that technology is really important and really important investment for us.
virtual reality is not just fun f people have tried it we have occulus and other things coming out but it's actually the greatest empathy device because it enables you to experience something not quite realistically but a lot closer. one of my favorite examples is a film called clouds over syria. now can that make you and i understand what it's really like to be a refugee of course not. but it can help be closer. and it's used to train surgeons. when we think about what technology can do from beaming down from solar planes to give data at much lower or free cost to the poor to creating virtual experiences where you can experience things without the same kind of travel or life experience to ai where we can use machines to enhance the human experience, that's pretty exciting stuff. and we're excited to be making
these investments. >> so today no doubt i will post a picture. five years from now i will be posting an experience to my facebook page. and the people who love me and know me are going to get that and have the experience that i'm having in a way this is less virtual. it's more like being there. that's what we're going to see? this is what these investments are leading us to is to sharing experiences with these people? >> it is. i loved your post-it where you were in santa monica and your kids were more excited about the beach than your speech. shocking. >> yeah. >> but i posted a 360 picture of the capitol yesterday. it's cooler. you feel more like you're there. and when you think about trying to experience something, where we all can't travel around the world i think we can bring experiences much closer. >> so who know what is it can can look like.
something smells weird. who know what is the range of experiences might be. >> but on a -- that's fair enough. >> odor on facebook. >> we would love to make that possible. we're working on that right now but we probably should be. >> you heard it here first. >> but when you think about it how many experiences can you actually have? how many lives can you actually understand? when we bring ourselves closer to together as individuals as people i think the world becomes a little smaller. i think we have hope for the world to become a little more peaceful. >> on that note i want to take the last part of our time together to talk about some of things you've done outside of facebook and sort of your personal journey. you've become really a household name since 2010 not not just due to facebook but because of lean in. it's kind of a phenomenon. it's an experience. a lot of people are talking about it and experiencing it to try to enhance their own lives. you've got the lean in.org foundation, the circles that i
talked about. the phenomenon that the book itself has created in ways that it affect the lives probably so many people who are sitting here in the audience and people watching us virtually. part of the message was how important it is for women who want to find success in both careers and their families have a great partner. you emphasized that a whole lot. as most know it's been over a year since you lost your husband dave. how has the last year changed what it neens for you to lean in? >> it's an important question. i did a post this mother's day where i talked about my perspective obviously changed from losing my husband especially so unexpectedly. i talked about how as a woman your career can be benefited and your life by having a supportive partner. i still believe that's really important if you can find it. i became a single mother overnight and i became a single mother with a lot of resources. i don't pretend to have the
experience most single mothers have in this country but i certainly understand much more than today. but i understand the american family is evolving and changing. the number of children being raised by single mothers has more than doubled. now, 40% of families head bade single mother live in poverty compared to 22% headed by a single father and 8% head bid two parents. to the american family is evolving. what it is to be the american family. certainly the help we provide single mothers is completely insufficient. on a personal note, father's day was two days ago. i don't think i ever spent enough time thinking about what it would be like a child on n this country not having a father on father's day but i sure did two days ago. but as we approach everything from how we interact with each other to how we think about the
american family we need to understand that the family is evolving. >> what are your ambition force the lean-in movement? what do you want to see it do over the next five years? is there a sequel to the book? >> it's absolutely none of that. we would like to not have to exist because we have achieved equality and everyone is leaning in all the time. we launched the second phase of lean-in together tomorrow, which is together women can. and that's really about women supporting other women. and the goal is very simple. equality. equality in the workplace, equality in the home. half our countries and half our country is run by women -- companies are run by women. we are far from that. the good news is that this is already at least about to happen if not starting to happen. i'm super excited about lean in circles wefment never thought we would have 28,000.
our goal was 1,000. and 28,000 circles, lean-in circles. think ten women, sometimes men who get together once a month. there's one in texas with hundreds of members because they say everything is bigger in the state of texas. but they get together once a month. we hear this is how they get raises, how they get that voice in their head saying they can, not they can't. and this is about cultural change. so i'm going to ask the men only, men only in this audience, raise your hand if someone called you bossy as a little child. men only. there's always a few. women. women raise your hand if someone called you bossy as a child. girls aren't bossy. and boys aren't called bossy because we expect them to lead. but leadership is so surprising from a girl. the next time you see a little
girl called bossy, that little girl is not bossy. that little girl has executive leadership skills. i want to pause on something. i'm going to say it the other way. that little boy has executive leadership skills. there is no audience anywhere in the world that doesn't have exactly that reaction. there's no humor when it's a boy and there's lots of humor when it's a girl. why? because humor is about surprising our expectations. so it is actually funny that a little girl would have executive leadership skills. that's the problem. to this day in 2016 we expect leadership from men and not women. the campaign we're launching tomorrow about women helping other women is really important because i think there's another myth out there which is that along with women can't lead or shouldn't lead it's that women don't support each other. and i think that is not true. women do support each other and they are supporting each other. so tomorrow we're asking everyone to join us and post a picture of a woman who
supported them. i talked to so many women today who said their problem with posting tomorrow is they can't decide which woman to pick because so many women have supported their career. which is i think again a lot of people think. so we come together, we work together towards real equality. >> i'm about to turn to the audience but ask one more question. i want those of you who have questions to get ready. get your questions ready. and i will tell you the rules as soon as i'm done with this one. this is an important topic for me this last one. i have done a lot of research and a lot of thinking personally about the importance of work. how work dignifies people. how work brings meaning into people's lives. how work is a sanction if ied earl nardy think and important for people to do work. work has to be done and something that people deserve. but the people i've talked to in my research who have the most satisfying relationship
with their work are people who can answer the following question. it's not the question you ever hear in washington. the question you hear in washington is what do you do? it's not the right question. why do you do it? if you can answer the why of your work, you're happy. what's the why of cheryl sandberg's work? >> to give people voice so they can reach their ambition. for facebook and lean-in. facebook is about giving voice. facebook is about one of my favorite pages which is women in iran who post pictures of themselves without their head scarves which violates law. and there's this great picture of a grand mother, mother, and daughter. and saying i wanted my granddaughter to feel the wind on her hair before her hair turns gray. and also the women who proudly wear scarves because that's their belief and they post pictures of themselves. that's giving voice. when you think about the
history of being able to communicate, before facebook, before social media, it had to be us to get on tv, or an article written in the paper. but now anyone anywhere in the world can share what they really feel and thing. i think that that is so important. with a lean in, it's about the same thing, giving women voice, and leaving they can. the world so often tells women what they can't or what they should do. then, please raise your hand if you have ever said, "should you be working?" men, anyone? you,, has anyone ever told "should you be working"? workn they can't
and be mothers is absurd and goes against the reality they face. we can give people voice and tell them they can and help them come together to fulfill their ambitions. >> it's a nice note. we will turn it over to the audience. the mike will come to you. first question here. right here. the mike is coming to you. if you have a processed -- protest question, just make it into a question. right here. >> i'm surprised. i am a reporter here in d.c. now i know what my friends aspire for. now i see you. you have the company. they are up on a little bit. my question is about journalism.
as aefine facebook technical company and not a news company. you are also a regular purveyor of news, huge amounts of information. how do you see the synergies between your type of business and the regular news business? two do for each other? help each other. since i'm from rush, when will we have the office. >> so the answer to facebook is -- facebook and russia is i don't know. journalismto the question is obviously the media industry is in flux. it is going through a business technological change and how news is distributed.
reporters post and partners post, but because we are able to get more people to share -- the other thing that we do and hopefully do well if give people a way to interact with their readers. it builds the audience, and in turn, my decision -- monetization as well. sure that people who provide content have a good experience. >> thank you. huge, huge, huge fan. i have been tweeting both of you tagging facebook.
>> nice. i'm a fan of yours right back. >> by the way, i am a member of the leadership network and a small business owner. thank you for empowering me to create a woman empowerment network that i did in d.c. here's my question. especially in a political environment, i want to talk about bullying and words on facebook. we all see it in our personal feeds and news articles. does facebook feel that it has to do something around bullying. we all see it. the post can put an article up and people are yelling and screaming in the comment section. what is facebook doing and what are you doing to help us as users to improve our dialogue with each other. >> it's a great question. there is noplace for hate and
bullying on facebook. we have strict policies and we rely on users to report the most important thing we have done. we helped people have better communication. if you put up a picture and we enabled tools where i can report to you to take that down. we learned overtime that we can make it emotional. please take it down. you are actually quite likely to respond. it turns out that they build empathy and most of what people mind can be solved person to person on facebook because people can be kind to each other. we work hard to take it down and
worked with schools and parents and local organizations all over the world. >> you talked about content policy that you have regarding terrorism. the internet being used by isis and others to radicalize homegrown terrorists. is facebook involved in any way, shape, or form or is it taking part in the web? >> so there is noplace for terrorism on facebook. we take it seriously. there is noplace for violence. we take it down as soon as we find them. we are pretty happy that people will say facebook is the no the place of choice for terrorists. we have real name identity and part of bullying as well. people are less likely with
identity. you even see this in the media. if you look at the websites where people are posting. you see where your real name and photo is attached to what you say. i will not pretend the comments are perfect, but they are a lot nicer. identity is one way that we protect this. >> one of the biggest problems we have -- let me preface this -- there is a very interesting article that shows that commentary on the internet on the news stories is a leading indicator of psychosis and sociopathy. those who are worried about dating someone should casually ask on the first date. do you write anonymously and red lights and the whole idea. is it your view that anonymity is an enemy of an open society?
>> there are services where people want to be anonymous and have authentic identity. it's a good enabler of good behavior for sure. it helps. the most important thing that goes on facebook is identity. here are the books who said who you are. i can respond. it's the case that a lot of what has to happen does happen person to person. to the great woman back there who started the women's network
is people come to support each other when they can or post something they don't like they come to fix it. >> who is next. let's go over there in the corner. >> i'm mary katherine hamm. one of the things i like about them with the conversation around it, it focuses on -- not just a policy prescription. it focuses on how we focus on each other as a group. outside of government structures that we can do a lot with. i read your mother's day post with interest as a woman who did welcome a single mom responsible and i found there were policy prescriptions in that. here's my question. when we talk about single moms, we sometimes miss opportunities to create those outside government structures that they have been interested in doing. >> they are focused on outside government structures. we are very nonpartisan of all types and the circles are focused on individual actions. we have a precurriculum and other guides and every one is practical. there is something you can do and do that day. for example, women don't get
paid as much as men anywhere in the world. and we see that changing. part of individual action for people at some times and for single mothers is advocating for policy. that can only ever be part. that worked to get people in government off 40%. do you know how many companies in norway are run by women? throw.4%. this is about whether or not we want and encourage the leadership. >> i'm an intern with the asia
studies team. this is a great honor. my question is about facebook's policy in china. you update us about what facebook is doing in china and if the market will ever be open? china lastst in week. i'm on the disney board, and we just opened disney in shanghai. right now, the service is not available in the chinese market.
thee need more women in field. you can also mentor other women, sponsor of the women, and build technology to help women express themselves. the world is also increasingly global. increasingly what you do today say the river rate not just in this room but around the world. >> by the way, can work at aei is helping the world. [laughter] implicit inhat was her question. >> that's right. i want to thank all of you for joining us and invite all of you to join me in thanking sheryl sandberg. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, roll call senior editor will discuss this week's sit in by house democrats calling for a vote on
new gun legislation. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning life at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. >> today, house speaker paul the and kevin brady unveil gop tax proposals. you can see it live starting at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. president obama is in california today to deliver remarks and participate in a pound discussion with facebook's mark zuckerberg. at can see it live starting 1:45 eastern here on c-span. >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors
then, at 10:00 eastern, "afterwords"- discusses the history of guns and how they became part of american culture. she also looks at the business end of manufacturing and selling arms. >> element of our current culture that had the very most to gain by elevating and celebrating their product was the very most invisible when we think about guns.
the gun industry has become almost invisible. > on sunday, marcia clark, the lead prosecutor in the o.j. simpson trial, weighs in on the legal system. her.oke with go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> house to my ended a 25 plus .ur sit in on the house floor later, nancy pelosi spoke to reporters about getting a vote on the bill. to assist with the five minutes. minutes.s 25
ms. pelosi: good morning, i know it's not morning but i haven't been to sleep yet since tuesday night, so, beware. as you all know, because you've been there, when we get sworn into congress we take an oath of office to support and defend the constitution and the american people. guided by the moral strength of john lewis, our sit-in on the floor resonated around the world. and focused the attention of the american people on the radical and reckless obstruction to bipartisan, very popular gun safety bills. the republicans turned off the microphones, we raised our voices. they turned off the cameras, we went to periscope. they tried to shut down the discussion and what resulted was a discussion heard around the world.
all the struggles because republicans refused to give us a vote on commonsense gun violence legislation, overwhelmingly supported by the american people. in the case of one bill, 5%, the other, 90% of the american people. the republican house should have the courage to keep guns out of the hands of criminals an suspected terrorists no bill, no break. then the dark of night, left the house with two more days of work to do and lasted for, what, almost two weeks. unbelieve -- and left for almost two weeks. unbelievable. the point is this. members have just become totally tired and frustrated of every time we have a heart wrenching tragedy in our country for gun violence, carnage it produces, whether it's little children, 6 years old in newtown, whether it's young people last week in orlando, whether it's church
goers in charleston. across the country, you name it, it breaks your heart. families suffer, they can never really be made whole. we hope to give them some hope that their grief, many of them who are fwreeving, have turned their grief into action in order to get some gun laws passed so that other families are spared. every time it happens, we have a moment of silence. a moment of silence that is indicative of the silence that -- how many times will the members be asked to stand for a moment of silence, and we do so reverentially, but that's no a
substitute for the actions that are needed. book of james, deeds not words. so you have seen with orlando and the first anniversary of south carolina, june 17, the anniversary, we are stepping into a new world in terms of this struggle. a widening universe of advocates, of a widening circle of different sectors of our demographics in our country. veterans forming committees chaired by mark kelly and gabby giffords. veterans, general mcchrystal wrote the op-ed about the involvement of veterans in this fight. on any number of occasions during the night, i quoted some of these relating to addition -- these vets relating to additional diversity in the anti-gun violence fight and the
involvement of our veterans. so public safety, public health, protecting the american people is all related and what do republicans do instead of giving us a vote on guns? they pass a really pathetic zika bill. it's been four months since president obama submitted his emergency supplemental bill request for zika. four months for emergency. think of that. four months for an emergency -- for emergency funding. house republicans have dawdled, delayed an obstructed, trying to shortchange our response to this virus, threatens to do devastating damage to america's families and children. even though we said it before, some of the children who might be affected by this may not be able to walk, talk, hear, or see. costs about $10 million to sustain their lives for the short time that they will live,
maybe 10 years old. it's sexually transmitted, it's very dangerous. shouldn't be messing around with some kind of bill that does nothing. and it's so bad that they brought a rule to the floor that says no debate on the bill. they knew there was just no case to be made for it. and they knew there was a strong case to be made against it so here we have an appropriations bill, military construction, v.a. bill, they attach this to that. they bring it to the floor, it's
required to have a recorded vote. there's stipulation as to, there are requirements as to how you handle appropriations bills on the floor. they're usually all under an open rule so you can amend. this is a conference report so that part is different. but i tremble at the thought of what they'll do next with regular standup bills. this conference report and no debate. so what opportunity was there for debate on the rules? no debate on the rule. that is not only highly unusual, i've never seen that happen. the dead of night, without debate, on the floor for a radical, reck less bill more focused on attacking women's health than protecting america's families. dangerously underfund our fight against zika. cuts off women's access to birth control. and undermines our veterans as
well. now on the subject of undermine, it's a false economy to say i'm not going to pay to prevent and contain zika because you will have to spend much more money dealing with the aftereffects which are tragic in people's lives. so, a doctor said on the subject, if you don't get the money the president asked for, that's going to have a very serious negative impact on our ability to get the job done. so that was disappointing. but again, i cannot conceal the satisfaction that democrats have in working with john lewis with the actions of katherine clark and david cicilline with the management of it all, by john larson all day, steve israel all night. with the periscope to give us access to the outside world or the access -- give them access to us. beto o'rourke, let's see. scott and mark takano. yeah, mark takano. so our members were very resourceful and that turned us up from a tree fallen in the wilderness that no one could hear, we'd just be talking to
ourselves in the chamber, to 2.6 million contacts one way or another. technology has enabled us to communicate in social media. all of this would not have been possible without the activism of the outside groups, whether it's every town whether it's moms against guns, the of course the brady campaign, the, really, leader of all of this, gabby giffords' group. i was on the phone with a hundred of the groups last
sunday in the preparation for the communication and activism we needed. so with that, i'd be pleased to take any questions you may have. if i don't associate your voice in your direction it's because i haven't been to sleep yet. did you get any sleep last night? >> not much. representative lewis said last night you guys crossed the first bridge and when you come back on july 5, you expect to continue this. speaker ryan said earlier this morning that it sets a dangerous precedent for the minority party to hijack the floor. what is the next step? is civil disobedience still on the table? what do you plan to do when you get back? ms. pelosi: we'll be meeting to determine how we go forward. we're still here. as we ended the debate on the floor, spoke to folks outside, we're so proud of them, many of them were there
overnight, even in the rain, a large crowd of people who had been communicating with congress to the tune of hundreds of thousands of calls. we'll finish here and we have our activism for all of next week. we cannot let this -- let me be really clear about this. we cannot stop until we get a bill. until a law is passed this isn't about politics. it's not about leches. it's not about campaigns. it's about the safety of the american people. we want this off the table. we want the values and hope the republicans can agree to that. we're watching carefully what's happening on the senate side now. again, we're very, shall we say, democrat wick a small d as well as a big d group and members will decide what form, what
manifestation of opposition to the status quo and positive initiative as we go home something different in different groups. but stay tuned. >> democrats obviously reached a new level with the sit-in in terms of vocalizing your frustration with republicans and calling for a vote. but you guys have also been on the floor relating to the maloney amendment for lgbt rights system of standing up more vocally to speak over republicans. does this represent a shift in terms of the minority party in the house and how you guys are going to get your message across? ms. pelosi: i think you have to take it on a day-to-day basis. the effort yesterday, again inspired by john lewis,